Apple had two big wins against Samsung last year—its much-vaunted $1 billion victory in a San Jose federal court and a less-noticed, but also important, win at the International Trade Commission.

While Apple may get a nice check from Samsung at the end of the day, it also wants to kick certain Samsung products out of the US market. That type of relief is clearly not forthcoming in the near future. In its California court case, the judge denied Apple's request for an injunction last month.

The full ITC has reviewed Apple's win in that venue, and yesterday it decided against awarding Apple the product ban that the judge in that case had recommended, at least for now. It's normal for the full commission to review all patent decisions at the ITC, but in this case they want the judge to reconsider his decision regarding two of Apple's patents before the full commission is even briefed on the case.

For Apple that means one thing: delay, delay, delay. If the judge's December recommendation had been adopted, Samsung would have to post a major bond, for 88 percent of the value of the several phones found to infringe patents in this case.

Now it's clear it will be several months before the full ITC even hears arguments about a product ban. Eye-popping verdicts notwithstanding, neither US judges nor this key trade agency seem to favor giving Apple the knockout blow it desires in this ongoing patent war.

I wonder how the Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit feels about this, considering his recent statements before the NY State Bar on "activism" by the Supreme Court in patent law. (IPLaw 360, sub required unfortunately)

Quote:

Judge Rader said the law properly calls for injunctions to issue in most instances where infringement is found. He drew an analogy with property law, where the remedy for trespass is to remove the trespasser, yet noted that under the eBay rule, injunctions don't issue in 25 percent of cases where infringement is found.

The "may" in the statute does not call for a four-factor test, but rather is there to cover the idea that an injunction should not issue in rare instances where doing so would affect the public interest or endanger health, Judge Rader said.

Granted, it's a slightly different statute he's talking about, but I doubt that makes his position much different.

Does the change in patent validity from the USPTO play into this case / decision at all? The landscape of these suits keeps changing rather quickly between initial decisions, reviews, and appeals (lately, in Samsung's favor it would appear)

OK, so it;s not a "we're not banning Samsung" it's "We're not ready to hear this case at all yet, the judge needs to clarify 2 rulings first, then, we'll considder the recomendation to ban the products formally."

So, this essentialyl is nothing but a delay, and perhaps incling that the Judge may have made an incorrect or ill-advised ruling on 2 points that may get shot down, which could (but isn't guaranteed) to mean a ban is less likely.

Is this still going on? I'm looking forward to someone imposing cross-licencing between a bunch of mobile phone manufacturers. Or invalidating a bunch of patents. Every single company involved in smartphones has both launched and been subjected to these suits, has both been suspected guilty of copying (or using patents without permission/licence) and has suspected others of the same.

I'm just tired of the whole charade distracting everyone from what's important - the technology.

I wonder how the Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit feels about this, considering his recent statements before the NY State Bar on "activism" by the Supreme Court in patent law. (IPLaw 360, sub required unfortunately)

Quote:

Judge Rader said the law properly calls for injunctions to issue in most instances where infringement is found. He drew an analogy with property law, where the remedy for trespass is to remove the trespasser, yet noted that under the eBay rule, injunctions don't issue in 25 percent of cases where infringement is found.

The "may" in the statute does not call for a four-factor test, but rather is there to cover the idea that an injunction should not issue in rare instances where doing so would affect the public interest or endanger health, Judge Rader said.

Granted, it's a slightly different statute he's talking about, but I doubt that makes his position much different.

Held: The traditional four-factor test applied by courts of equity when considering whether to award permanent injunctive relief to a prevailing plaintiff applies to disputes arising under the Patent Act. That test requires a plaintiff to demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. The decision to grant or deny such relief is an act of equitable discretion by the district court, reviewable on appeal for abuse of discretion. These principles apply with equal force to Patent Act disputes. “[A] major departure from the long tradition of equity practice should not be lightly implied.” Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U. S. 305, 320. Nothing in the Act indicates such a departure. Pp. 2–6.

I'm just tired of the whole charade distracting everyone from what's important - the technology.

well if you look at AAPL's stock price right now you can see the distraction is not working

You seem to think Apple are the only ones doing the suing. As I said, every party is involved on both sides of a suit, and Samsung is definitely not some white knight or underdog. Their hands are dirtier than most. I can't quite fathom how you've linked share price in here, except as a shallow attempt to take joy in the losses suffered by shareholders, which is a poor thing to do.

I'm just tired of the whole charade distracting everyone from what's important - the technology.

well if you look at AAPL's stock price right now you can see the distraction is not working

You seem to think Apple are the only ones doing the suing. As I said, every party is involved on both sides of a suit, and Samsung is definitely not some white knight or underdog. Their hands are dirtier than most. I can't quite fathom how you've linked share price in here, except as a shallow attempt to take joy in the losses suffered by shareholders, which is a poor thing to do.

It was a dumb point, but we're not talking Enron or Bernie Madoff here. There's no sob story with the drop in AAPL. It's just typical stupid wall street irrationality, where a stock is suddenly worth 30% less with no correlation with actual performance, just based on a bet of what other people are betting other people will do. If you choose to get involved in that game, you have to be prepared for that irrationality.

Well this isnt a big surprise. Apple's suits keep getting gutted all over the world. Just this month a Dutch court ruled that Samsung's products don't violate Apple's trade patents on rounded corners and rectangular shape. The reason: numerous previous examples of that design in use before Apple. Add to that the fact that Apple keeps having patents overturned and that their $1 Billion settlement is being whittled down and its bad news for Apple.

Don't think so. When the fall is this pronounced, and over this length of time, something more significant is going on. The money managers have come to some conclusions which they are acting on, and this is what is driving the price action. They may be right or wrong, but its not irrational, its thought out. What they think is:-

-- nothing comparable to iPhone or iPad coming down the pike-- existing products equalled or bettered by competition-- falling margins and static sales-- transformation of company into high risk consumer goods player

They may be right or wrong, but if they are right, the cash mountain can be eaten with bewildering speed. It is one thing to have a couple of hit products, and they have done that brilliantly. The real test in consumer goods business is what you do when the market turns against you on a dime. We don't know if they can do that or not. The money managers are betting no, or are not prepared to take the risk. So they distributed as much as they could to the Apple fan club at 650-700, and now they have given up on distribution and are heading for the exits as fast as they can get out.

Quote:

It was a dumb point, but we're not talking Enron or Bernie Madoff here. There's no sob story with the drop in AAPL. It's just typical stupid wall street irrationality, where a stock is suddenly worth 30% less with no correlation with actual performance, just based on a bet of what other people are betting other people will do. If you choose to get involved in that game, you have to be prepared for that irrationality.

I would not be surprised if the reason the ITC decided to wait on hearing this case is to allow more time for the patent invalidation on those patents central to the case roll through. Apple is going to get a check from Samsung, it just won't be anywhere close to the $1B verdict nor wil they get an injunction on any of the products that really matter to Samsung.

While Apple may get a nice check from Samsung at the end of the day, it also wants to kick Samsung products off the US market.

Shouldn't that be offending Samsung products?

That would depend on one's definition of "offending".

That would depend on who you mean by "one's".

Apple's definition of offending might be any product, from anyone that prevents them from having an absolute monopoly. Regardless who builds the underlying hardware or has the patents on the technology in that hardware.

Samsung's and others definition of offending might differ.

Mod down, but as ambassador Delenn says, it is a matter of perspective.

You seem to think Apple are the only ones doing the suing. As I said, every party is involved on both sides of a suit, and Samsung is definitely not some white knight or underdog. Their hands are dirtier than most. I can't quite fathom how you've linked share price in here, except as a shallow attempt to take joy in the losses suffered by shareholders, which is a poor thing to do.

Being involved in a suit doesn't make you dirty. If Apple sues you, then you are involved in a suit, like it or not.

Just to point out:* Apple is the one going on a patent rampage trying to get competing products removed from the market.* Other parties pre-existing lawsuits were typically to collect FRAND rates (fair, reasonable, and what everyone else pays, but that which Apple thinks it shouldn't have to pay).* Apple is the one (specifically Jobs) who threatened to use patents as a club over employee "poaching" (otherwise known as a free market for employees (who are not slaves) to freely move to whatever job they want)

I don't care what kind of phone, tablet or computer you get. I really don't. Really. Buy Apple's products if you like them. And good luck to Apple selling them.

But Apple should just leave everyone else, who doesn't want Apple products, alone.

This case is just utterly ridiculous. Nevermind that nearly all the infringing IP is all obvious steps to anyone who operates computers on a regular basis, the fact that these patents exist at all, are being used, and that the disgusting patent holders are being funded by ignorant consumers is just nauseating. Here's a little Ben Franklin for you: "As we benefit from the inventions of others, we should be glad to share our own...freely and gladly."

You seem to think Apple are the only ones doing the suing. As I said, every party is involved on both sides of a suit, and Samsung is definitely not some white knight or underdog. Their hands are dirtier than most. I can't quite fathom how you've linked share price in here, except as a shallow attempt to take joy in the losses suffered by shareholders, which is a poor thing to do.

Being involved in a suit doesn't make you dirty. If Apple sues you, then you are involved in a suit, like it or not.